RAQUEL VARELA

.

Bater palmas não chega. 

Propostas para enfrentar a crise

São às centenas os pedidos de médicos a requerer material nas suas redes sociais. É um escândalo que não tenham equipamento de proteção.

𝓐 𝓷𝓸𝓼𝓼𝓪 𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮́ 𝓼𝓪𝓵𝓿𝓪𝓻 𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓼. 𝓔 𝓼𝓪𝓵𝓿𝓪𝓻 𝓸𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓷𝓸𝓼 𝓼𝓪𝓵𝓿𝓪𝓶. 𝓑𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓹𝓪𝓵𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓪𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓯𝓲𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓼𝓪𝓾́𝓭𝓮, 𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸, 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓮, 𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓪-𝓷𝓸𝓼 𝓫𝓮𝓶. 𝓜𝓪𝓼 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓬𝓱𝓮𝓰𝓪.

𝓐𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓪 𝓶𝓮́𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓸𝓼, 𝓮𝓷𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓶𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓸𝓼, 𝓽𝓮́𝓬𝓷𝓲𝓬𝓸𝓼 𝓮 𝓪𝓾𝔁𝓲𝓵𝓲𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓱𝓸𝓼𝓹𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓪𝓬𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓻𝓮𝓶 𝓮𝓶 𝓶𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓪 𝓪𝓸𝓼 𝓱𝓸𝓼𝓹𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓲𝓼, 𝓭𝓮𝓲𝔁𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓪𝓼 𝓯𝓪𝓶𝓲́𝓵𝓲𝓪𝓼. 𝓓𝓲𝓼𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓪 𝓽𝓾𝓭𝓸. 𝓙𝓪𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓮𝓶𝓸𝓼. 𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓽𝓮, 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓲𝓷𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓫𝓲́𝓿𝓮𝓵 𝓭𝓸 𝓖𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓸, 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓲𝓾 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓭𝓪, 𝓼𝓮𝓶 𝓶𝓪́𝓼𝓬𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓼 𝓮 𝓸𝓾𝓽𝓻𝓸 𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓹𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓪 𝓵𝓲𝓷𝓱𝓪 𝓭𝓪 𝓯𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮. 𝓢𝓪̃𝓸 𝓪̀𝓼 𝓬𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓶𝓮́𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓸𝓼 𝓪 𝓻𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓻𝓮𝓻 𝓶𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓵 𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓪𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓼𝓸𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓲𝓼. 𝓔́ 𝓾𝓶 𝓮𝓼𝓬𝓪̂𝓷𝓭𝓪𝓵𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓱𝓪𝓶 𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓹𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸. 𝓣𝓸𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓯𝓲𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓼𝓪𝓾́𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓶 𝓼𝓮𝓻 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓪𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓪 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓾𝓶 𝓼𝓮𝓰𝓾𝓻𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓻𝓲𝓼𝓬𝓸, 𝓪𝓽𝓮́ 𝓪𝓰𝓸𝓻𝓪 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓸. 𝓒𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓪 𝓛𝓪𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓽: “𝓞𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓯𝓲𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓼𝓪𝓾́𝓭𝓮 𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓷𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮 𝓶𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓸 𝓷𝓸𝓼𝓼𝓸 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓸𝓼𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓾𝓻𝓼𝓸”, 𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓺𝓾𝓮 “𝓹𝓸𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓯𝓪𝔃𝓮𝓻 𝓿𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓵𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓻𝓮𝓼, 𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓯𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓻 𝓶𝓮́𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓸𝓼 𝓮 𝓮𝓷𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓶𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓸𝓼 𝓷𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓵𝓲𝓷𝓱𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓶𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓰𝓮𝓶”. 𝓞 𝓼𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓸𝓻 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓼𝓪𝓾́𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓿𝓮 𝓼𝓮𝓻 𝓻𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓼𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓻 𝓸 𝓢𝓝𝓢 𝓮 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓻 𝓸 𝓼𝓮𝓾 𝓬𝓸𝓵𝓪𝓹𝓼𝓸. 𝓝𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓶𝓲𝓽𝓲𝓻 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓼𝓮 𝓾𝓼𝓮 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓼𝓮 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓯𝓪𝔃𝓮𝓻 𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓸 – 𝓾𝓶 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓰𝓪𝓽𝓮 𝓯𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓸 𝓪𝓸𝓼 𝓱𝓸𝓼𝓹𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼, 𝓭𝓮 𝓯𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓸 𝓮𝓶 𝓻𝓲𝓼𝓬𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓯𝓪𝓵𝓮̂𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓪 𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓼𝓮 𝓮𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓸́𝓶𝓲𝓬𝓪, 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓰𝓪𝓽𝓮 𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓪𝓹𝓸𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓻 𝓾𝓶 “𝓼𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓼𝓪𝓾́𝓭𝓮 𝓮𝓶 𝓻𝓮𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓫𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓲𝓪”.

𝓕𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓸𝓼 𝓶𝓮́𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓸𝓼 𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓯𝓲𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓼𝓪𝓾́𝓭𝓮 𝓷𝓸 𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓸, 𝓮 𝓪𝓵𝓰𝓾𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓲𝓻𝓮𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓮𝓶 𝓬𝓸𝓸𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓼, 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓮𝓰𝓾𝓲𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓷𝓾𝓶 𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓸𝓻𝓰𝓪𝓷𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓻 𝓸𝓼 𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓿𝓲𝓬̧𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓸 𝓢𝓝𝓢 – 𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓮́ 𝓮𝔁𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓪𝓻 𝓼𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓮 𝓪 𝓮𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓪́𝓬𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓪 𝓰𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓸𝓬𝓻𝓪́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪. 𝓓𝓮 𝓶𝓾𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓾𝓬𝓸 𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓿𝓲𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓷𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓸𝓼 𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓾𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓮 “𝓰𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓲𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮” 𝓮 𝓸𝓼 𝓼𝓮𝓾𝓼 𝓔𝔁𝓬𝓮𝓵𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮...

𝓜𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝟏𝟔𝟎 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓯𝓲𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪̃𝓸 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼, 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓱𝓪𝓿𝓲𝓪 𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓹𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓼𝓾𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓲𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮, 𝓽𝓻𝓮̂𝓼 𝓶𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓱𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓪 𝓮𝓹𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓲𝓪 – 𝓐𝓷𝓽𝓸́𝓷𝓲𝓸 𝓒𝓸𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓼𝓮, 𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓮́𝓶, 𝓺𝓾𝓮 “𝓷𝓾𝓷𝓬𝓪 𝓯𝓪𝓵𝓽𝓸𝓾 𝓷𝓪𝓭𝓪”. 𝓝𝓪̃𝓸 𝓱𝓪́ 𝓽𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓯𝓲𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓼𝓪𝓾́𝓭𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓱𝓪𝓶 𝓼𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓼, 𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓱𝓪́ 𝓵𝓪𝓫𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓸́𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼, 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓼𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓮𝓵𝓸 𝓖𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓸, 𝓪 𝓯𝓪𝔃𝓮̂-𝓵𝓸 𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓶 𝓹𝓪𝓰𝓪, 𝓸𝓾 𝓮𝓶 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓬𝓪̂𝓶𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓼, 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓵𝓾𝓬𝓻𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓸𝓼 𝓵𝓪𝓫𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓸́𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓼. 𝓔́ 𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓸 𝓮́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓸 𝓷𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓪𝓵𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓲𝓪 𝓶𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓵? 𝓞𝓻𝓪, 𝓼𝓪𝓫𝓮𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓱𝓸𝓳𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓮𝓶 𝓘𝓽𝓪́𝓵𝓲𝓪 𝓾𝓶 𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓸𝓻𝓮𝓼 𝓯𝓸𝓬𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓮𝓬𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓸𝓼 𝓱𝓸𝓼𝓹𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓲𝓼, 𝓮𝓶 𝓔𝓼𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓱𝓪 𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓶. 𝓔́ 𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓬𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓬𝓾𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓾𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓻𝓮𝓼. 𝓒𝓾𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓻 𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓼 𝓪𝓰𝓸𝓻𝓪 𝓮́ 𝓪 𝓷𝓸𝓼𝓼𝓪 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓻𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓷𝓾́𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓸 𝓾𝓶.

𝓓𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓼 𝓮 𝓭𝓸 𝓼𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓸𝓻 𝓭𝓮 𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓮 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓼. 𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓼𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓪 𝓯𝓻𝓪𝓰𝓲𝓵𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓮𝓶 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓾𝓶 𝓹𝓪𝓲́𝓼 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓷𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓓𝓲𝓼𝓷𝓮𝔂𝓵𝓪̂𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓪 𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓲́𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪, 𝓼𝓮𝓶 𝓼𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓪 𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓻 – 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓲𝓼𝓼𝓸 𝓪𝓵𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓲 𝓷𝓸𝓼 𝓾́𝓵𝓽𝓲𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝔃 𝓪𝓷𝓸𝓼 𝓮𝓶 𝓿𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓯𝓵𝓮𝔁𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓹𝓾́𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓼. 𝓟𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓪𝓬𝓪𝓾𝓽𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓻 𝓸 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓮 𝓭𝓮 𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓮́ 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓼𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓰𝓮𝓻 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓻𝓮𝓼, 𝓬𝓪𝓶𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼, 𝓶𝓪𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼, 𝓹𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓪𝓵 𝓭𝓮 𝓿𝓸𝓸. 𝓗𝓪́ 𝓶𝓾𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓪𝓶 𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓹𝓮𝓷𝓼𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓷𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓪𝓶𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼, 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓿𝓮𝔃 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓪𝓶 𝓹𝓮𝓵𝓪 𝓔𝓾𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓪 𝓪 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓫𝓮𝓷𝓼 𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓼𝓮𝓶 𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓾𝓶 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓸𝓷𝓭𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓻 𝓮 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓬𝓪𝓼𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓫𝓪𝓷𝓱𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓼𝓮 𝓵𝓪𝓿𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓶 – 𝓮́ 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓼𝓸 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓾𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓪𝓹𝓸𝓲𝓸 𝓵𝓸𝓰𝓲́𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓪 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓱𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓼. 𝓞𝓾 𝓷𝓸𝓼 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓻𝓮𝓼, 𝓿𝓲́𝓽𝓲𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓼𝓾𝓶𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓸 𝓷𝓸 𝓟𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓛𝓲𝓼𝓫𝓸𝓪. 𝓠𝓾𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓮𝓰𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓻 𝓸 𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓲𝓵𝓱𝓪𝓼 𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓱𝓪𝓶 𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓯𝓮𝓬𝓱𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓮𝓵𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓻𝓸̃𝓮𝓼, 𝓪̀ 𝓶𝓪𝓻𝓰𝓮𝓶 𝓭𝓪 𝓵𝓮𝓲, 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓻 𝓸 𝓼𝓮𝓾 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓪 “𝓲𝓷𝓼𝓸𝓵𝓿𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮”. 𝓟𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓶𝓮𝓼𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓲𝓷𝓼𝓸𝓵𝓿𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓳𝓪́ 𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓵𝓱𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓼𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓸̃𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝟏/𝟑 𝓭𝓸 𝓿𝓪𝓵𝓸𝓻. 𝓔𝓶 𝓹𝓵𝓮𝓷𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓮𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓰𝓮̂𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪, 𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓪-𝓼𝓮 𝓷𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓬𝓮 𝓪 𝓬𝓪𝓹𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓵 𝓭𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓲́𝓼. 𝓝𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮́ 𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓮́ 𝓾𝓻𝓰𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓵𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓻 𝓽𝓸𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓻𝓮𝓼 𝓼𝓸𝓫 𝓪 𝓐𝓭𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓟𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓾𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓪? 𝓝𝓪 𝓖𝓻𝓸𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓬𝓮 𝓳𝓪́ 𝓼𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓾𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓬𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓼. 𝓔 𝓷𝓪 𝓣𝓐𝓟? 𝓥𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓵 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝔃𝓮𝓻 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓬𝓪𝓼𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓶 𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓸𝓾 𝓫𝓵𝓸𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓮 𝓶𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓵 𝓶𝓮́𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓸 𝓭𝓪 𝓒𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓪 – 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓬𝓮𝓫𝓮𝓶 𝓪𝓰𝓸𝓻𝓪 𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓷𝓸𝓼 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓮𝓷𝓱𝓪́𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓪 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓽𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪?

𝓞 𝓭𝓮𝓬𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓼𝓾𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓮 𝓪 𝓰𝓻𝓮𝓿𝓮 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓷𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓰𝓮 𝓭𝓪 𝓮𝓹𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓲𝓪, 𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓿𝓲𝓾 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓻 𝓬𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓪 𝓪̀ 𝓼𝓮𝓵𝓿𝓪𝓳𝓪𝓻𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓼. “𝓢𝓮𝓻𝓪́ 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓪 𝓱𝓸𝓻𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓯𝓪𝓵𝓪𝓻 𝓮𝓶 𝓰𝓻𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓼?” – 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓰𝓾𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓶-𝓶𝓮. “𝓢𝓮𝓻𝓪́ 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓱𝓸𝓻𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓾𝓶 𝓹𝓪𝓲 𝓮 𝓭𝓮 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓶𝓪̃𝓮 𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓮𝓶 𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓬𝓪𝓼𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓭𝓸𝓼?”, 𝓮𝓲𝓼 𝓪 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓰𝓾𝓷𝓽𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓿𝓸𝓵𝓿𝓸. 𝓔𝓶 𝓘𝓽𝓪́𝓵𝓲𝓪 𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓼𝓾𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓷𝓼𝓸𝓼, 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓮𝓯𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓼 (𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓭𝓮 𝓸 𝓲𝓷𝓲́𝓬𝓲𝓸 𝓭𝓪 𝓮𝓹𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓲𝓪, 𝓪 𝟐𝟑 𝓭𝓮 𝓯𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓸), 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓲𝓼𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓻 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓵𝓱𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓻𝓮𝓼, 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓼 𝓸𝓾 𝓯𝓲𝔁𝓸𝓼, 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓾𝓶 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓲́𝓸𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝟔𝟎 𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓼. 𝓘𝓼𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓾 𝓭𝓮𝓹𝓸𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓬̧𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓰𝓻𝓮𝓿𝓮 𝓰𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓵. 𝓞 𝓖𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓾𝓰𝓾𝓮̂𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓬𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓸𝓾 𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓮𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓰𝓮̂𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪, 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓷𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓿𝓸 𝓼𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓵𝓸𝓬𝓸𝓾 𝓮𝓶 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓪 𝓿𝓸𝓵𝓾𝓷𝓽𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓪. 𝓝𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓬𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓸𝓾, 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓪 – 𝓮 𝓪𝓺𝓾𝓲 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓭𝓮 𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓵 𝓭𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓫𝓪𝓽𝓮 𝓪𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓪́𝓰𝓲𝓸 𝓮𝓶 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓸 𝓖𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓸 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓻 𝓬𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓻 –, 𝓸 𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓯𝓪́𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓼 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓷𝓮𝓶 𝓭𝓮 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓹𝓾́𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓸𝓼, 𝓪𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓬𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓼. 𝓐𝓹𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓭𝓸 𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓶 𝓹𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓮𝓲𝓪 𝓷𝓸 𝓳𝓪𝓻𝓭𝓲𝓶 𝓮 𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓪𝓫𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓸 𝓸 𝓪𝓮𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓸, 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓭𝓸 𝓯𝓪𝔃 𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓸?

𝓐 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓲𝓫𝓲𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓲𝓻𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓪̀ 𝓰𝓻𝓮𝓿𝓮 𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮 𝓾𝓶 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓿𝓲́𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓶𝓸, 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓯𝓸𝓲 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝔃𝓲𝓭𝓸 𝓮𝓶 𝓘𝓽𝓪́𝓵𝓲𝓪, 𝓕𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓬̧𝓪, 𝓔𝓼𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓱𝓪, 𝓓𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓶𝓪𝓻𝓬𝓪, 𝓢𝓾𝓮́𝓬𝓲𝓪, 𝓘𝓷𝓰𝓵𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓪, 𝓐𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓱𝓪... 𝓜𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝟓𝟎 𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓼𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓸 𝓶𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓸, 𝓷𝓪 𝓼𝓾𝓪 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓸𝓻𝓲𝓪 𝓮𝓾𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓮𝓲𝓪𝓼, 𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓾𝓶 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓪 𝓼𝓾𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓲𝓻𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓪̀ 𝓰𝓻𝓮𝓿𝓮 𝓮𝓶 𝓟𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓾𝓰𝓪𝓵. 𝓜𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮, 𝓪𝓽𝓮́ 𝓪𝓰𝓸𝓻𝓪, 𝓼𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓮 𝓬𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓼𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓾𝓰𝓾𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓼.

𝓞 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓮𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓰𝓮̂𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓭𝓮 𝓼𝓾𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓻 𝓸 𝓭𝓲𝓻𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓻 𝓪̀𝓼 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬̧𝓪𝓼, 𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮́ 𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓶 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓼𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓰𝓮 𝓪 𝓹𝓸𝓹𝓾𝓵𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸. 𝓞 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓪́𝓰𝓲𝓸 𝓯𝓸𝓲, 𝓪𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓽𝓾𝓭𝓸 𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓪, 𝓻𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓭𝓲𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓾𝓲́𝓭𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓸𝓼 𝓟𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓾𝓰𝓾𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓸𝓾𝓼𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓻. 𝓞𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓯𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓻𝓮𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓾𝓼𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓶-𝓼𝓮 𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓻 𝓪𝓾𝓵𝓪𝓼, 𝓮 𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓲𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓮𝓼 𝓪 𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓻 𝓪𝓸 𝓜𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮́𝓻𝓲𝓸; 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓻𝓮𝓫𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓪̃𝓸 𝓼𝓲𝓵𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓼𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓸𝓾 𝓪𝓼 𝓮𝓼𝓬𝓸𝓵𝓪𝓼, 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓬̧𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓸 𝓖𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓸 𝓪 𝓼𝓾𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓻 𝓪𝓼 𝓪𝓾𝓵𝓪𝓼. 𝓝𝓪 𝓐𝓾𝓽𝓸𝓮𝓾𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓪, 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓼𝓮𝓲𝓼 𝓶𝓲𝓵 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓵𝓱𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓻𝓮𝓼, 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓭𝓮 𝓯𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓸 𝓪 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸, 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓸𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓼𝓪𝓵𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓸 𝓪 𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓸 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓵 𝓮 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓳𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓵𝓪𝔂-𝓸𝓯𝓯 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓵. 𝓗𝓸𝓳𝓮 𝓹𝓸𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓶 𝓼𝓮𝓻 𝓽𝓸𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓸𝓼, 𝓭𝓮𝓹𝓸𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓬𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓮𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓰𝓮̂𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪, 𝓪𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓹𝓮𝓵𝓸 𝓒𝓱𝓮𝓰𝓪, 𝓒𝓓𝓢, 𝓟𝓢𝓓, 𝓟𝓢, 𝓟𝓐𝓝 𝓮 𝓑𝓵𝓸𝓬𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓔𝓼𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓻𝓭𝓪 𝓮 𝓪𝓫𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓟𝓒𝓟, 𝓘𝓛, 𝓟𝓔𝓥 𝓮 𝓙𝓸𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓮. 𝓕𝓸𝓲 𝓾𝓶 𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓿𝓮 𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓸 𝓷𝓪 𝓱𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓸́𝓻𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓪 𝓷𝓸𝓼𝓼𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓸𝓬𝓻𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓪, 𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓾𝓶 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓮, 𝓮𝓶 𝓬𝓪𝓼𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓼𝓸𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓰𝓮𝓷𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓵𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓮𝓶 𝓶𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓼𝓮, 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓬̧𝓸𝓼 𝓪𝓾𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓲𝓽𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓼 𝓼𝓮𝓳𝓪𝓶 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝔃𝓲𝓭𝓸𝓼.

𝓝𝓪̃𝓸 𝓸𝓬𝓸𝓻𝓻𝓮𝓾 𝓪𝓸 𝓖𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓸 𝓵𝓲𝓶𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓻, 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓬𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓮𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓰𝓮̂𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪, 𝓸 𝓭𝓲𝓻𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓪̀ 𝓻𝓮𝓶𝓾𝓷𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼, 𝓷𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓵𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓸𝓼 𝓵𝓾𝓬𝓻𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓼, 𝓸𝓾 𝓬𝓪𝓹𝓽𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓸𝓼 𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓰𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓻 𝓼𝓪𝓵𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓼 𝓪𝓸𝓼 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓵𝓱𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓻𝓮𝓼 𝓮 𝓼𝓾𝓪𝓼 𝓯𝓪𝓶𝓲́𝓵𝓲𝓪𝓼. 𝓔́ 𝓪𝓲́ 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪́ 𝓸 𝓭𝓲𝓷𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓸. 𝓝𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮́ 𝓪 𝓯𝓪𝔃𝓮𝓻 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓲𝓷𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓸𝓵𝓿𝓮𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓯𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓸 – 𝓪𝓷𝓾𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓻 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓵𝓲𝓷𝓱𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓬𝓻𝓮́𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓮́ 𝓪𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓻 𝓮 𝓪𝓰𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪.

𝓟𝓻𝓸𝓲𝓫𝓲𝓻 𝓭𝓲𝓻𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓯𝓪𝔃 𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰𝓾𝓮́𝓶 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓵𝓱𝓪𝓻 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓮 𝓶𝓮𝓵𝓱𝓸𝓻. 𝓜𝓪𝓼, 𝓼𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓾𝓭𝓸, 𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓾-𝓼𝓮 𝓾𝓶 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓼𝓮𝓶 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓵𝓮𝓵𝓸 𝓷𝓪 𝓱𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓸́𝓻𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓲́𝓼: 𝓵𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓽𝓲𝓶𝓸𝓾-𝓼𝓮 𝓪 “𝓭𝓸𝓾𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓪 𝓭𝓸 𝓬𝓱𝓸𝓺𝓾𝓮” –​ 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓰𝓮́𝓭𝓲𝓪 𝓮́ 𝓾𝓼𝓪𝓭𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓼𝓪𝓵𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓼, 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓸 𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓼𝓸𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓵, 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓻 𝓹𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓪𝓼 𝓮 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝔃𝓲𝓻 𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓪𝓾𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓲𝓽𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓼 𝓷𝓸 𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸.

𝓟𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓲𝓼𝓸𝓵𝓪𝓻 𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓰𝓮𝓻 𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓪𝓼 𝓮𝔁𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓶 𝓲𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓾𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓵𝓮𝓰𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓪𝓶𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮. 𝓝𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮𝓻𝓪 𝓷𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓬𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓮𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓰𝓮̂𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪. 𝓐 𝓼𝓾𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓷𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓲𝓻𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓪̀ 𝓹𝓸𝓹𝓾𝓵𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮́ 𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓶𝓲𝓰𝓪 𝓭𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓸𝓬𝓻𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓪 𝓮 𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓪𝓭𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓼. 𝓐𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓗𝓲𝓽𝓵𝓮𝓻 𝓼𝓾𝓫𝓲𝓻 𝓪𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓭𝓮𝓻, 𝓰𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓸𝓼 𝓼𝓮𝓶𝓲-𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓸𝓬𝓻𝓪́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓸𝓼 𝓷𝓪 𝓐𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓱𝓪 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝔃𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓶𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 “𝓮𝔁𝓬𝓮𝓹𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸” 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓯𝓪𝔃𝓮𝓻 𝓯𝓪𝓬𝓮 𝓪̀ 𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓼𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓿𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓻𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝟏𝟗𝟐𝟗. 𝓣𝓪𝓶𝓫𝓮́𝓶 𝓢𝓪𝓵𝓪𝔃𝓪𝓻 𝓼𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓭𝓸𝓾 𝓪̀ 𝓯𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓭𝓮 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓾𝓻𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓹𝓸𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓯𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓸 𝓽𝓲𝓻𝓸𝓬𝓲́𝓷𝓲𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 “𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓻 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓯𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓷𝓬̧𝓪𝓼”, 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓸 “𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓸 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓾́𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓼”.

* Historiadora, docente universitária, analista política.

IN "PÚBLICO"
25/03/20

.